I think that I will stand with the LONGSHOREMAN.

[mdmc]

Hello DU!

I created a GD thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x483358 on the 21st regarding the port deal. After listening to Jimmy Carter, I realized that Bush had created so much fear in America that even his base was unable to support this free trade port deal with Bush supporting Arabs. Bush has been "you are either with us, or with the terraist" so long, that thought does not seem necessary.

I asked why those posting here at DU opposed this deal. Most DU'ers stated that they wanted (isolationism / protectionism) the American govt. or and American firm to run the ports. Most DU'ers did not know that free trade had opened up our air /ports to foreign operators (even Bill Clinton supports this aspect of free trade). DU'ers did not want foreigners running our air / ports.

I stated that the only reason I oppose this port deal is because Bush supports it.

DU, in 45 days all free traders (those that support NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO) will have sufficient cause to support this deal (their terra concerns will be diluted by big money support of this deal). Free trade dems and GOP will support the deal.

What will we do then?

I for one will stand with the TEAMSTERS, the LONGSHOREMAN. I have found that they are out to support the working class in America, and that they will oppose big business, even when big business buys out the Democratic party.

So, in 45 days, after a "review" (review = one month of M$M - main stream media offering lock step approval of this deal), after the dlc free traders have kissed up to Bush, where will you stand?

I will stand with the longshoreman. They have worked and run the ports longer than any "firm". They know what the deal is. I will stand with them! How about you, DU?

[Gormy Cuss]

1. Well, since you put it that way

I stand with those working longshore.

[mdmc]

2. love the sig line!

:kick: Lets see if it works!:kick:

[Armstead]

3. This IS ultimately about mindless "free trade" globalization vs.democracy

What is happening with the ports is just one facet of what is happening in most industries and sectors.

We have given up our ability as a nation to devise policies and regulations that protect the domestic economy and the rights of workers and the very workings of democracy.

Personally, I am a "protectionist" but not an "isolationist." In short, that means I support international trade and economic policies and systems to encourage healthy growth throughout the world. But I also believe we should simultaneously protect the ability of America and other nations to preserve our sovergnty and institute policies to protect our domestic economy and ability to govern ourselves.

Eliminating civil governance and abdicating the power of the public sector is bad on a domestic level, and it is bad on an international level.

Giving up our ports and otehr basic infrastructire to outside transnational interests is bad, no matter where those are based.

[mdmc]

5. who else is some what protectionist? I am

considering outsourcing is the only other viable option. I support outsourcing in the private sector, but think that the USA should support regional economies. All govt. business should be public, not privatized.

[Marie26]

4. Longshoremen shrug at commotion

Baltimore Sun

BALTIMORE - A steady line of cars pulled through the gate just before 1 p.m. Thursday. Longshoremen, many already wearing their orange safety vests, flashed their badges to guards and made their way over to the berth at Seagirt Marine Terminal, where the MSC Zurich had docked.

Many of them have made this same trek for years, even decades. But one thing was different Thursday. The work they were used to doing in relative anonymity was suddenly news.

The company they work for, the British-owned cargo handling company Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., or P&O, is being bought by another stevedoring firm owned by the United Arab Emirates. A lot of U.S. lawmakers, governors and mayors think that's a security problem. But on the waterfront, there was a collective shrug.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3681941.html

So I guess if you stand with the longshoremen, you agree this isn't a big deal?

[mdmc]

7. exactly. It is only a big deal due to "with us or against us" racism.

The longshoremen run these ports. Listen to them. They know what the real security risk is (the fact that 'it is too expensive' to check out more then 5% of incoming cargo). They know how to run the ports.

I only oppose this deal because Bush supports it. If you support free trade (which I do not, in this case), then this is a good deal. Wait and see what happens when the 45 day review confirms that this deal is good free trade business.

[Marie26]

9. Is that the best reason?

You oppose it because Bush supports it. So if Bush comes out in favor of women's rights, we'll have to oppose him? I don't like him either, but it seems like basing our positions soley on contradicting Bush isn't maybe the best reason. If Dems. simply oppose Bush out of spite, it makes us look reactionary & negative; and also like we don't have positive or thoughtful policy positions. I can see how people can come down either way on the port issue, but it seems like the best thing would be to base an opinion on the actual merits of the case, rather than who's opposing it. It is SO tempting to oppose this deal just because it makes Bush look bad, though. It's hard to fight that. :)

[mdmc]

15. Thanks Marie26, and allow me to clarify

I feel that this deal "is just business". The deal is not beneficial to the American working class, and is only "an issue" because of anti-arab fear, imho. I really don't oppose arabs working or running our ports, but I do not support the deal, because it is currently hurting Bush.

For the record, if Bush did something kind, or just, I would support him. If Bush supported a women's right to privacy (right to choice), I would not play any anti-Bush hate game. I would support his proper position.

Here is a "thoughtful policy position" regarding our ports - All port workers should be unionized (LONGSHOREMAN). All ports should be secured by the coast guard, and cargo secured by the customs department. We should invest as much in our air / port security as we do on the Iraq war. This would make the ports much safer.

UAE can do this, all port managers can do this. The only ports not unionized are run by rat worm American companies. It is a shame that the weakest links port wise are run by American firms. That is very sad.

[mdmc]

11. thanks you for this story and link, Marie26

I am reading right now, and it is amazing. I did not know that the USA port management firms do not use unionized labor (As it is now, none of the cargo handling companies that hire the longshoremen at the state's public terminals are U.S.-owned.).

This is a very interesting article. Perhaps it is worth its own OP?

[mdmc]

12. I agree with this last statement from the article

"I'll let the federal government take care of security. But this flap has nothing to do with security. It's nothing more than election-year politics. A political issue."

[sadiesworld]

14. Crack me up.

So quotes from a couple of individual longshoremen now supercede the position of the Union itself?

(and you've really gotta love the link to Dubai hotels)

[mdmc]

16. what is the position of the LONGSHOREMAN?

I really don't know. It seems that the 8 ports run by USA firms have rat worm labor. I think that this article shows what is really happening at our ports. Most did not know this information.

[sadiesworld]

22. You might want to start with their website...

of course, you do seem far more interested in catapulting the propaganda.

Hey--did you also "stand with" the teamsters when they held rallies at ports around the country on Friday? LOL.

(what did YOU think of the Dubai hotel link at the bottom Marie's article?)

[mdmc]

26. you don't have a link do you?

I didn't go to rally last Friday, but I support their effort (although I do not know "what their effort" was, I am ashamed to admit. I am a lock step supporter of union labor, although I did not support the teamsters re: ANWAR).

What propaganda am I catapulting?

I didn't see a hotel link...but will go look.:kick:

[mdmc]

27. regarding the Dubai hotel link

It listed a bunch of UAE hotels. What is of concern?

[mdmc]

34. ILA calls for a 45 day review.

From their main page.

ILA Joins With Lawmakers Asking Bush Administration to Hold New Hearings and Federal Review of P & O Takeover by Middle East Company

[savemefromdumbya]

6. It's the security aspect

I'm not sure how you can outsource any security to foreign companies? Next they will be outsourcing guarding our long range missiles. Maybe the Chinese are already (they probably make the bits)?

[mdmc]

8. Coast Guard / Customs still do their thing Longshoremen still run the

port. The UAE pays the longshoremen and is required to work with customs and coast guard. I suggest listening to the longshoremen, customs, and coast guard. :kick:

[Skidmore]

13. I'm sorry, but I thiink your position is in the squishy middle.

We have had jobs go overseas for years now-- courtesy of Free Trade. We are currently watching major assets be sold off to foreign nations to cover debt rather than distribute the burden of that debt more fairly. I want fair trade--trade based upon the willingness of the nations we strike agreements with to reflect best labor practices, NOT encourage exploitation and de facto indentured servitude. THis nation has sold it's soul for trinkets. It has exported a business model that does not benefit the poor of the world but capitalizes on their backs.

I have no use for free traders.

[mdmc]

17. nor do I. I want our ports to be run by the best firm possible

I think that the best firm will use LONGSHOREMAN labor. My posistion is, when the free traders apporve this deal, I will continue to stand with the port workers. I will stand with the longshoreman.

[Marie26]

10. Not sure outsourcing is the right term

Usually, "outsourcing" means when a company moves it's business or production overseas. So, for example, GM outsources car manufacturing to Mexico. This means many Americans lose jobs, or lose the opportunity for jobs. That's not what's happening here. The longshoremen still keep their jobs, everything is still inside the US. It's not outsourcing so much as the acquisition of one foreign-owned corporation by another one.

[Gormy Cuss]

20. Outsourcing vs. offshoring

Outsourcing describes any movement of jobs from company employees to outsiders. When your company gets rid of an in-house function such as a copy center or accounting and contracts with an outside American-based workers to do the same work, that's domestic outsourcing. When you contract with workers in
another country, that's also outsourcing, but it's also termed 'offshoring' jobs.

[mdmc]

23. thank you for the clarification

:kick: peace and low stress

[savemefromdumbya]

37. I knew there was a word for it

but couldn't think of it

[mdmc]

21. overseas outsourcing is the most overt type of outsourcing

with all due respect, I consider any effort to undermined the working class "outsourcing". Allow me to give an example.

My local government employees are represented by the AFL-CIO. They have benefits...retirement... If the county takes some union jobs, and outsources them to a private company, outsourcing has occurred. The private company takes unionized, "living wage" jobs away from the working class, and offers lower compensated positions to replace this outsourced work force.

The local jail is another example. Generally, all workers employed their are unionized, and have great "living wage" salaries and benefits. The jail "outsourced" the food service to Marriott, and now the kitchen staff has been fired, and replaced with Marriott Corporation "scabs". There are just as many kitchen staff jobs, but the wages have been slashed to "far lower than living wage".

I think that these are also examples of outsourcing.:kick:

[savemefromdumbya]

36. I'm not sure what the word - outsourcing was a loose term

[peacetalksforall]

18. Man, were we ever stupid. Did any of you ever study the free trade

stuff? I didn't. I thought it applied to GOODS. Not our infrastructure - including our debt. Perhaps, I should say - Man was I ever stupid.

Yes to the longshore men and women.

Edited to add - No to longshore men and women 'quoted?' in an article written by whom with what agenda?

[mdmc]

25. I knew what free trade was in 1992

but I like Clinton / Gore far more that "sucking sound" Perot. The problem seems to be that we never jumped from free trade to fair trade. I support fair trade, corportations don't support fair trade. Clinton Gore supported "fair trade" as if it was "free trade". We were never able to make that shift.

A :kick: for the longshoremen!

[Coexist]

19. the LONGSHOREMAN PROTESTED the port deal:

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060225/NEWS/602250320/1006

http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=72805§ion=localnews

There are more articles - these protests happened all over the country and there were threads on these protests on DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=508329#508363

[sadiesworld]

24. I think some DUers are stuck on stupid here...

or think WE are. :eyes:

[mdmc]

31. I read the links

if, in 45 days, the LONGSHOREMEN oppose this deal, I will stand by them. Why do you think this is dumb?

[mdmc]

35. kick

to the head...

[mdmc]

30. thanks for the links

I will support the Longshoremen in their opposition to this deal, even after the 45 day review "proves this to be a good free trade deal". I am sorry to all if my position was not clear.

[Bandit]

28. Support the Longshoremen but fuck the Teamsters

Teamsters are void of any credibility as a Union. They hired Scab Labor to build their new Union Hall in Houston in 2000. Their reason was Union Labor cost too much. Fuck the Teamsters. They also have been doing all they can to bolster the GOP while cutting the throats of regular Labor Unions.

[mdmc]

32. I don't know what happened in Houston, but it sounds like it sucked

Union labor is expensive. But that is the price of hiring "livable wage" employees. I always respected the Teamsters, but your post saddens me.:kick:

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. BCCI

There can be no discussion of the UAE royals and the companies they own without a discussion of BCCI, the terrorist bank that they owned 70% of.

This is not just 'business as usual'. This is about a regime that is sympathetic to terrorists being in a position where they can directly impact on US port security.

Saying they are friends is meaningless. Iran was once a friend, until it wasn't. Saudi Arabia is a friend, but is the driving force behind the Islamist extremists -- Saudi Arabia stands 3rd in the number of terrorist-related deaths of US personnel, after Iraq and Afghanistan (unless you go way back to Lebanon in the 80s and the barracks bombing - and before Lebanon blew up it was the prime financial center and playground of the Middle East).

The connections between the UAE and terrorism are significant enough to disturb anyone who is paying attention. Those who are apologists for UAE remind me of the old leftists who refused to denounce Stalin even after the evidence of his gulags and purges came to light.

[mdmc]

33. thanks for your post

Since I am mihop, I think that these UAE banks are just another neo-con component, destroying a free America.
Since most Americans are not mihop, they must oppose this deal because they think UAE are terraist. In 45 days, the M$M will be able to convince the sheeple that UAE is a partner against terror. This will be hard for the M$M to do, because Bush has been "you are either with us, or with the terraist" for so long. However, M$M + Sheeple = UAE is a partner against terror = deal is good.

In the end, Bush is not going to have a problem with UAE banks. The question becomes, "Will the DLC have a problem with UAE banks?"

In 45 days, after the M$M propaganda is complete, do you think that the connections between the UAE and terrorism will still be "significant enough to disturb anyone who is paying attention"? I hope that it is, cause it would support my BFEE + mihop beleifs... BFEE is in cahoots with UAE and America's enemies (terrorist).